search

w3c / controller-document

Controller Documents
https://w3c.github.io/controller-document/
Other
5 stars 3 forks source link

Contexts and Vocabularies inconsistencies #10

Open selfissued opened 2 months ago

selfissued commented 2 months ago

The Contexts and Vocabularies sections in VC Data Integrity and the Controller Document are inconsistent and there is no Contexts and Vocabularies section in VC JOSE COSE at all. We need to determine what this content should be, where it should be, and where it's not needed.

Can we, for instance, simply delete it from the Controller Document spec like was done in VC JOSE COSE? Or should it be deleted from VC DATA INTEGRITY when it's updated to reference the Controller document spec?

iherman commented 1 month ago

This is relevant for this issue, as well as #15 and #18.

In my view, there are two approaches:

  1. We separate the terms defined in the controller document into a separate vocabulary. In that case #18 becomes, partially, moot, because the terms should be removed from the current DI vocabulary, and the vocabulary section in this spec should be rewritten accordingly. Also, a completely new vocabulary file should be created alongside this document, just like we did for the bitstring status list.
  2. While the formal specification of the terms (e.g., "authentication") are (eventually) part of the controller document, the formal vocabulary (its URL, etc.) remains unchanged, except for the references of the term definition (per #18). Because that vocabulary (and related context) is much larger than what the controller document defined, it makes sense to remove this section from the controller spec and leave the DI spec in charge.

From a purely editorial/consistency point of view, my preference would be (1). However, those terms are already in use out there (including for DID) using the same base URL as the core DI vocabulary, I believe our only real option is to go with (2).

iherman commented 1 week ago

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-06-26

View the transcript #### 3.4. Contexts and Vocabularies inconsistencies (issue controller-document#10) _See github issue [controller-document#10](https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/10)._ **Manu Sporny:** we need to make the content and vocabularies consistent. … we already have a security vocabulary so dont need a new controller doc vocabulary. **Ivan Herman:** if you go to the vocabulary document we refer to one or our specs for the definition of the term. … so any references to one of our security specs should refer to controller doc instead. > *Dave Longley:* +1 to ivan's plan, unless we bump into some issue. > *Manu Sporny:* Yes, +1 agree with Ivan on the path forward. > *Manu Sporny:* We won't be updating the security context. > *Manu Sporny:* (IMHO). **Dmitri Zagidulin:** manu mentioned updating security vocabulary. This does not require update to security context as well. **Ivan Herman:** keeping security vocabulary URLs as now means less changes. We only need to point to controller doc for the definition of terms. The context document remains unchanged. > *Manu Sporny:* Yes, +1 to what ivan said, agreed.